2/18/2007

Daily Episcopalian asks an important question.

While some of us were caught napping or preaching or something, Jim Naughton over at Daily Episcopalian put the question to the "Windsor Compliant Bishops," that group of twenty or so bishops, half from the Anglican Communion Network, half from elsewhere in the Episcopal Church. The question is this:

WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS?We know that half of them have distinct plans for the setup of a separate Anglican Communion entity in the US with status as a jurisdiction of the Anglican Communion. The other half? Who knows.

I have said before and I will say it again...its not over til its over. The idea of a "college of bishops" forming a Windsor compliant jurisdiction is a very bad idea. Let me repeat: VERY BAD.

Here is why: (i) It will solidify the impression that there is a crisis and that compliance with the Windsor Report is the only solution. It is not. Compliance with the Windsor Report or any other committee report is a consequence of idolatry, in this case making an idol of a perfectly competent but quite fallible document. (ii) It will quickly be argued that this college of "Windsor compliant Bishops" is the constituent member of the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church is heretical, schismatic and evil.

Jim is right to ask his question, for if the bishops have indeed been planning to be this college of Windsor compliant Bishops they have been engaged in ecclesiological subversion ( the church parallel I suppose, to sedition.) Attempts at such subversion is of course anyone's right. But the need for questioning vigilance is our duty.

4 comments:

Mark, your grasp of Anglican ecclesiology (imagine trying to spell that at the Scrips Spelling Bee) is better than mine. do you think it's possible that TEC would be usurped as the legitimate Anglican church in the US? if so, what consequences do you forsee?

The Camp Allen group has been a VERY BAD idea, ever since they were constituted as a "You *Must* Sign-On Here to Enter" gathering.

This is an opportunity, I would argue, for ++KJS to lay down the law (as "Presider of the House of Bishops") in a way that ++Frank did not: it is NOT appropriate for bishops of this church to have meetings ***limited*** to certain ideologies.

Discuss Windsor, Dromantine, the Covenant, etc. etc. all you want---but you GOTTA let in the neigh-sayers, as well as the yea-sayers! ;-/

It is certainly another attempt to do end run around the established order and set themselves up as the only ligitimate expression of anglicanisn in America. As jcf said it's time for ++KJS to do a smack down on this group and let them know the old boys club is coming to an end. The church has a mission in the America and around the world and if they do not like it and can't conduct themselves with the dignity of their office instead of acting like a group of spoiled children who aren't getting thier way they should renounce their orders and go elsewhere.

Bishop MacPherson expressed the concern of perhaps one-quarter of the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops that the General Convention’s response had not been adequate and offered, on their behalf, these bishops’ services to provide oversight for congregations out of sympathy with their own bishops over these matters.

Also

[Rowan Cantuar] also spoke of his discomfort with the idea that the Episcopal Church has created a “new faith” (suggested by both Bishop MacPherson and Bishop Duncan).

While we were told that +MacPherson is a "moderate conservative---but faithful to TEC", I now have my doubts. Is he a wolf in the (Exec. Council) fold? :-/

OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.